• *The discussion of the creation, fabrication, or modification of airgun moderators is prohibited. The discussion of any "adapters" used to convert an airgun moderator to a firearm silencer will result in immediate termination of the account.*

Spectrum Analysis

A spectrum analysis is a compilation of all frequencies and the power levels associated with each over some specified interval.

This is a spectrum analysis of two signals.
Both signals (red and blue) are about 0.35 seconds long.
This graph shows a comparative spectrum analysis of the samples.
It shows frequencies between 0Hz and 22kHz in 512 bins with each bin representing a channel 43 Hz wide.
The two signals are over laid.
The blue signal analysis is for the bare rifle.
The red signal analysis is for the rifle with the moderator. The moderator used generally tests as about 10 dB below the bare rifle if you are checking with a cellphone microphone from a distance of about 15 feet. The cell phone microphone favors the low end of the spectrum. It also sounds very good and flat to the average listener.

red&blue.jpg

This very clearly shows what is happening with this moderator (or pretty much any moderator). The moderator captures the low frequency energy passing through the moderator and translates it to higher frequencies. It emits that energy at the higher frequencies. Those frequencies are mostly above about 6 or 8 kHz. The higher the better. The longer this takes the better.

So the moderator should take a blast of high pressure air which contains some set of frequencies and slow that air down so that the signal takes longer to pass (removes the crack) while at the same time translating those low frequencies to higher ones.

That is what it has to do.

EDIT: I want to make clear that the graph represents the PEAK power level for each "bin" during the sample period. IOW the graph does not start at 0 seconds and progress forward. That's not how this works. If you pick any point on the graph, that point is the PEAK power level for the frequencies (the bin) represented during the sample time.
 
Last edited:
This is just information collected from one particular moderator, I am not sure it would be the same trend for all moderators.
There were designs in the 70s that intentionally used a dog whistle type concept to intentionally shift the sound energy into higher frequencies. It was intriguing but maybe not an ideal approach.
Humans have a hearing range from 20-20,000 khz and a deers hearing range goes on up to 30,000khz. In order to use a frequency shift to elevate the device above human or deer hearing range would have to be pretty dramatic to elevate it completely out of our hearing range.
I believe there are more factors involved than a frequency shift that contribute to reducing perceived noise. Lower frequency sounds travel further, but are much more difficult to place the origin of the sound. Higher frequency sound waves do not travel around corners and angles as well but you can immediately point out the origin of a sharp high pitched sound. What’s more effective for a person doing pest work on a farm? The low tone that’s hard to place will most likely spook less critters.
It would be interesting to see multiple devices graphed out, and for a person to also note which device “sounded” more effective to them at the source and another observer to do the same from a safe place in front and down range. Then you could start drawing conclusions as to the relevance to frequency and effectiveness.
 
A spectrum analysis is a compilation of all frequencies and the power levels associated with each over some specified interval.

This is a spectrum analysis of two signals.
Both signals (red and blue) are about 0.35 seconds long.
This graph shows a comparative spectrum analysis of the samples.
It shows frequencies between 0Hz and 22kHz in 512 bins with each bin representing a channel 43 Hz wide.
The two signals are over laid.
The blue signal analysis is for the bare rifle.
The red signal analysis is for the rifle with the moderator. The moderator used generally tests as about 10 dB below the bare rifle if you are checking with a cellphone microphone from a distance of about 15 feet. The cell phone microphone favors the low end of the spectrum. It also sounds very good and flat to the average listener.

View attachment 394971

This very clearly shows what is happening with this moderator (or pretty much any moderator). The moderator captures the low frequency energy passing through the moderator and translates it to higher frequencies. It emits that energy at the higher frequencies. Those frequencies are mostly above about 6 or 8 kHz. The higher the better. The longer this takes the better.

So the moderator should take a blast of high pressure air which contains some set of frequencies and slow that air down so that the signal takes longer to pass (removes the crack) while at the same time translating those low frequencies to higher ones.

That is what it has to do.

EDIT: I want to make clear that the graph represents the PEAK power level for each "bin" during the sample period. IOW the graph does not start at 0 seconds and progress forward. That's not how this works. If you pick any point on the graph, that point is the PEAK power level for the frequencies (the bin) represented during the sample time.
Thankyou , seems like a good start to a series of posts
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OldSpook
Beerthief,

Felt near the barrel muzzle of a higher FPE PCP tends not to stand up very well. There is a second reason why DFL use a metal mesh to hold the felt in place. It prevents larger pieces of shredded felt from entering the projectile path. But don't let "there be dragons" type statements stop you from trying an idea. As long as the answer to the question, what happens if the baffles fail, does not include expensive damage and injury.
I used the word Felt more as a description of an idea not as a final product . but thankyou for the concern .
 
A few years ago I was at a PB suppresor demo. They filled the suppressor with shaving cream. It was pretty impressive the difference between with and without. The shaving cream really made a difference. Gun was a CAR-15 .223/5.56.
Being we were just shooting at cans and stuff, I don’t know what effect the shaving cream had on accuracy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OldSpook